2018 (1) TMI 1561

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....laintiff was on account of balance price of goods sold and delivered. For obtaining a judgment on admission, the plaintiff relied on two cheques of September, 2016 of a total value of Rs. 2,26,02,396/-. In addition, the plaintiff relied on the confirmation of accounts, inter alia, for the financial year ended March 31, 2016 and for the period April 1, 2016 to August 1, 2016. According to the accounts confirmed by the appellant herein, a sum of Rs. 2,32,77,237/- was apparently due to the plaintiff as at March 31, 2016 and such amount stood reduced to Rs. 2,26,02,396/- as at August 1, 2016 after taking into account certain subsequent supplies effected by the plaintiff and the payments made in the interregnum by the appellant herein. The endea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es and made over the same to the plaintiff. The application that was filed by the plaintiff was for judgment on admission and the interlocutory Court recognised it as such. The interlocutory Court noticed that the value of the two cheques was in excess of Rs. 2.26 crore but a contemporaneous notice of demand issued by the plaintiff referred to a figure of Rs. 1,67,45,446/- and passed a decree on admission for such lesser amount. A judgment is passed on admission on the basis of the clear, unequivocal and unambiguous admission of the party against whom such judgment is made. There was a doubt as to the veracity of the figure of Rs. 2,32,77,237/- in the confirmed accounts for the year ended March 31, 2016 that had been raised by the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the plaintiff, nothing else could have been looked into for the purpose of considering whether a judgment on admission could be passed. The plaintiff says that if a certain amount is admitted to be due and if a part of such amount is shown to have been paid off later, the original admission will still hold good less the amount adjusted on account of the subsequent payment. This is not a case of any payment being made after an admission was made by the appellant. The appellant acknowledged a sum in excess of Rs. 2.32 crore to be apparently due to the plaintiff as at March 31, 2016, but the plaintiff's document of April 4, 2016 shows that the plaintiff claimed that the dues were to the extent of Rs. 1.67 crore. Thus, the admission c....